SerpApi.Org
Since its founding, the U.S. Congress, the institution that writes the laws governing the world's leading superpower, has operated with shockingly lax standards.
Republican Florida Rep. Kat Cammack and House Speaker Mike Johnson are debating whether members' staff should undergo routine criminal background checks and whether lawmakers should be barred from romantic or sexual relationships with the very people who draft, research, and shepherd the vast majority of legislation that shapes American life. While the two aren't running their issues as a combined package, they should be because together they make up a glaring national security and institutional integrity failure.
It's not overstated to claim that congressional staff handles almost all of the substantive work on bills. They sit in on classified briefings, travel with members, manage sensitive data, and influence policy at every level.
"In Washington, congressional staffers serve as a legislator's engines of policy production, as they draft bills, seek out cosponsors, meet with lobbyists, and network with other key staffers on the legislator's behalf. Indeed, for those who have worked in or around the U.S. Congress, the importance of staffers to the functioning of the institution is nearly universally appreciated, with some staffers even earning titles such as a member's, or party's, 'secret weapon,'" The Center for Effective Lawmaking said in a 2018 paper about their role.
Yet for decades, congressional staffers have operated with fewer mandatory vetting requirements than a shift manager at a grocery store chain. A foreign adversary doesn't need to hack servers or bribe a member directly. They can simply embed an operative as a driver, an aide, an intern, or a romantic partner to receive information and even sway important policy decisions that affect Americans. (Sign up for Mary Rooke's weekly newsletter here!)
It is a damning indictment of institutional complacency that these positions do not require passing a criminal background check or disclosure of foreign ties. And, until scandals forced the conversation, there has been no discussion of clear institutional prohibition on lawmakers entering romantic or sexual relationships with the staff who serve them.
What does it say about Congress that seemingly the only qualifications for becoming a staffer were as simple as being sexually desirable with the right political connections? Of course, there are outliers to these examples, and I don't want to be unkind to the ones who received their positions based on merit alone. But, at some point, Americans should refuse to cooperate with the seedy business going on in Washington.
Former Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein employed a staffer for nearly 20 years as her San Francisco driver and Asian-American community liaison. He even attended Chinese consulate functions on her behalf. The FBI eventually informed her that he was reporting to China's Ministry of State Security. She chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time. Investigators concluded he passed no classified material. Even journalist James O'Keefe, with zero access to classified information, has found out more just from fake dates in D.C. Americans are just supposed to accept that there was a breach in security that lasted two decades, but nothing important was ever relayed to China. He was apparently a very terrible spy.
Former California Rep. Eric Swalwell infamously fell victim to the classic "honeypot" situation with Fang Fang, a suspected Chinese intelligence operative, who assisted him with fundraising, helped place an intern in his office, and maintained close personal contact. Swalwell denied any wrongdoing after the FBI issued a defensive briefing in 2015, and she allegedly fled back to China.
More recently, a staffer on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party was reportedly offered cash for insights on sensitive topics like rare-earth minerals and Venezuela. Separately, reports of declassified files have highlighted a former member allegedly placing interns acting as foreign agents into other offices.
Cammack's H.Res. 500, introduced in 2025, would require criminal background checks for House employees by the Capitol Police and public disclosure of recent foreign government payments, contracts, or citizenship. Not surprisingly, it remains stalled in committee despite repeated calls for a floor vote.
These incidents don't even touch sexual and romantic relationships, which add another dangerous layer. Even consensual relationships can create coercion risks and opportunities for blackmail. A compromised staffer can be pressured into pushing bad policy. A compromised member can be blackmailed into terrible votes.
Johnson recently publicly backed banning lawmakers from romantic or sexual relationships with Capitol Hill staff. He called it "inappropriate, as it would be in any workplace" and said Congress should meet corporate standards. Again, this is common sense, but it's only being looked at right now because of the scandals and ethics probes into Democratic Texas Rep. Tony Gonzales, Swalwell, and other members. (ROOKE: Judge Barrs Prosecutor From Office For Failing To Keep It In Her Pants)
Is it really too much to ask for reforms like relationship bans and mandatory vetting for the people responsible for instituting important policy decisions?
The complacency is what is truly insane. It should not require fresh scandals to force these conversations. At the bare minimum, Congress owes the American people a workforce held to standards commensurate with the power it wields.
Follow Mary Rooke on X: @MaryRooke
